N.Raghava Rao v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

Date: 11.11.2019 Between :

N.Raghava Rao Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad & others.

Respondents This court made the following :

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Respondents.

2.

Petitioner claims to be owner and in possession of land to an extent of Ac.17-31 guntas in Sy.No.67 of Adibatla village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy district having purchased the same from Palle Swamy and others under unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 19.12.1995. Petitioner claim that ever since purchase made by him, he is in possession and occupation of the subject land. However, in the recent past, the name of Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) is shown as pattadar in respect of the subject land. In this regard, petitioner sent a representation dated 21.10.2019 to 3rd respondent-Tahsildar through registered post with acknowledgement due on 22.10.2019, requesting to delete the name of TSIIC and reflect his name. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 3.

Even according to the averments in the writ petition, petitioner claims ownership through unregistered document said to have been executed by the owner of land on 19.12.1995. From the averments in the representation dated 21.10.2019, it is apparent that in the year 2005 land acquisition notification was issued and what happened pursuant thereof is not known. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that without issuing any notice and without paying compensation, land of the petitioner is sought to be acquired.

4.

Admittedly, on the basis of unregistered document, petitioner cannot be recognized as pattadar. Therefore, prima facie, the claim made by the petitioner is not valid and further more the representation dated 21.10.2019 was sent through registered post on 22.10.2019 and immediately thereafter, this writ petition is filed. Even according to the averments in the writ affidavit as well as in the representation, acquisition proceedings were taken up in the year 2005 and change of name of TSIIC in the revenue records. Petitioner cannot expect decision in a hurried manner and instead of waiting for the decision, rushed to this Court alleging inaction on the said representation. 5.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J Date: 11.11.2019 DA

11.11.2019